The Fool's Razor: Choose Theory That Pleases Most

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alkatran
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the idea that when evaluating competing theories, the more pleasing one should be favored. Participants engage in a light-hearted exchange, with some expressing skepticism about the validity of this principle, particularly in the context of theism versus atheism. The conversation touches on the notion that individuals often find comfort in their beliefs, regardless of whether they are theistic or atheistic, and that people generally prefer to believe they are correct in their viewpoints. There is also a critique of broad generalizations about belief systems and a recognition that both science and religion offer frameworks for understanding reality, albeit from different perspectives. The dialogue includes references to the emotional and psychological aspects of belief, suggesting that many adhere to their views out of conditioning or a desire for control over existential uncertainties. Overall, the thread blends humor with deeper philosophical reflections on belief and understanding.
Alkatran
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
959
Reaction score
0
When choosing between two competing theories, the one which is most pleasing should be favored. :rolleyes:

Just figured I'd give the theists something to shave with, too.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Alkatran said:
When choosing between two competing theories, the one which is most pleasing should be favored. :rolleyes:

Just figured I'd give the theists something to shave with, too.

I think you are just being condescending. I might formulate a principle for programmers too. How about:

When choosing anything whatsoever, whatever makes one most like a robot is the one to be favored. :smile:
 
Les Sleeth said:
I think you are just being condescending. I might formulate a principle for programmers too. How about:

When choosing anything whatsoever, whatever makes one most like a robot is the one to be favored. :smile:

Nono, whatever one is more efficient! Less lines! Less computation time! beep beep zlurp!
 
I'm not sure I get your point. Well, I'm sure I don't get your point. Are you suggesting it is more pleasing for there to be (a) God(s) or more pleasing for there to be no God(s)? You do see how it is unclear that one is more pleasing than the other, right? Especially if your verision of God is the fire and brimstone punitive enforcer father figure with a huge flaming whip that will damn you at the first hint of sin or disbelief, I don't see how theism is more pleasing than the alternatives.

So are you suggesting that athiests choose athiesm because it is more pleasing OR that theists choose theism because it is more pleasing?
 
Both get pleasure from thinking they have the right answer.
 
Both get pleasure from thinking they have the right answer.

Broad, sweeping generalizations. I like it.

I might as well say that scientists take pleasure in thinking they have the wrong answer, if we were to continue this game, Mr. Science Advisor.
 
No, it's true. No matter which theory anyone chooses, the longer they stay with it the more they like it. It is not very often you find someone who doesn't like what they believe (well, except perhaps someone who was recently converted).

I suppose this would be the same effect as the one where you favor evidence for your theory?


Think about it: everyone thinks they're right, moral, ETC and gets annoyed when other people don't agree with them.


The thread was intended as a minor joke, anyways.
 
Alkatran said:
No, it's true. No matter which theory anyone chooses, the longer they stay with it the more they like it. It is not very often you find someone who doesn't like what they believe (well, except perhaps someone who was recently converted).

I suppose this would be the same effect as the one where you favor evidence for your theory?


Think about it: everyone thinks they're right, moral, ETC and gets annoyed when other people don't agree with them.


The thread was intended as a minor joke, anyways.

I don't get annoyed if someone disagrees with me for a rational reason, sometimes even I will rethink my stand on certain issues if rational points are brought up to support a certain viewpoint. I think making the generalization that everyone thinks they are right within their own viewpoint is stepping over the line, perhaps that is your viewpoint, thus you believe everyone else thinks this.
 
Alkatran said:
The thread was intended as a minor joke, anyways.

I thought you were ridiculing people who believe in God, or who at least suspect some sort of consciousness is behind creation. A lot of people probably do believe out of conditioning, fear, or because it is more appealing than believing death is the end.

One of the points I've made before is that there are aspects to consciousness not fully appreciated by the Western concept of consciousness. One is that it is possible to develop one's conscious sensitivity. If one can learn to feel deeply enough (and by "feel" I don't mean emotion), then one detects something very subtle going on behind apparent reality.

The studies and theories of science are completely about the apparent, about what the senses can detect, about the physicalness of reality. People who've become proficient at experiencing that subtle background thing rely on the "heart" of consciousness, not the senses; it is from them the most reliable reports of "something more" have come, and not from ordinary religious belief.

If you just look at this subject superficially, maybe your taunt fits in some way. But then, you've now become someone yourself who has opinions without really understanding the full extent of the issue you are opinionated about.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
The world is a crazy place, and if we simply existed, without any beliefs, we might feel completely lost and hopeless. These two views (science and religion) are two ways of gaining at least the illusion of control. With science, we find all this chaos arises from simple rules that we can understand and use to our advantage. With religion, God is in control, and he is on our side.

It is impossible, despite what some may think, to decide which is correct. With religion, you believe God created our human reasoning, and anything we deduce with it, especially pertaining to science, is only what he wants us to. With science, you believe our reasoning is a valid tool, and the conclusions we draw about the world using it are also valid, including the strong possibility that religion is only a convenient way to avoid the hard questions and the fear of death. They are each self-consistent. You decide which one you want to believe, or maybe a little of both, and then that's that.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Les Sleeth said:
I thought you were ridiculing people who believe in God, or who at least suspect some sort of consciousness is behind creation. A lot of people probably do believe out of conditioning, fear, or because it is more appealing than believing death is the end.

Maybe I should have said I was giving everyone something to shave with. My bad.
 
  • #12
alcatran:
The Fool's Razor
When choosing between two competing theories, the one which is most pleasing should be favored.

Just figured I'd give the theists something to shave with, too.
__________________
Sometimes I dream about going faster and faster, the universe shrinking into my grasps...
----------------------------------------------
Theist my friend is you too
why you say that,youre not shaved
theist my friend is dream on
let me tell you something,is the universe really shrinking into your grasp?
 
  • #13
man the universe is shrinking into my head and ill give something the theist
to shave their ###
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Razor? Pah!
I use Occam's Easy-Off Wax-strips.
 
Back
Top